Assignment for Chapter 9 Group 2 Disc. – DUI (Veronica, Angelique, and Jessica) This part due to be posted by July 25th.
Assignment for Chap. 9 Discrimination in Employment. 1) Read Chapter 9 Discrimination and Teacher Employment.
2) Post Group Responses on the Discussion Board in Assignment 9 - Employment Discrimination folder.
Group 2 Disc. - DUI
Discussion Questions:
1. Can the board force Martin to resign? Why or Why not?
No, they cannot force her to resign. Based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a portion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits discrimination by state government institutions. The clause grants all people "equal protection of the laws," which means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another. In this case, Martin has received a DUI and others teachers have not, but have been pulled over for the same offense. They cannot legally force her to resign and "give preference to one person over another".
2. Is the infraction serious enough to warrant dismissal? Why or why not?
No, a DUI - although not a good reveal of personal morals and judgment nor being a good role model for students - is not a serious enough infraction to warrant dismissal from teaching. As stated, a DUI obviously shows character flaws in any individual who chooses to drink and drive, but it does not affect an individual's ability to perform his/her job - unless it is a reoccurring event in which case deems reason to investigate and look at possibility of need for further evaluation.
3. What about male colleagues who were not charged for similar offenses?
As a government employee, cops are also bound to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another. That having been said, Martin may have grounds for issuing a complaint against the police department on a basis of sexual discrimination in the manner of issuing a DUI to her and not to numerous male teachers on other occasions. However, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the actual reason for the issuance of the DUI was sexual discrimination. This burden if oftentimes difficult to prove because there are very few instances in which plaintiffs have objective evidence or proof of discrimination.
Obviously, if the male teachers were not charged with DUI, the school has no "issues" with their employment. Martin has nothing to argue in regards to her employment situation comparatively to theirs.
4. What rights does Martin have as a teacher in this situation?
Martin has several rights in this case. First, she has the right to tell the board No to their request for her resignation. She also has the right of Due Process. If the school board wants a resignation because the small town is swirling in rumors they will need to have documentation and proof to back up their request or it will not hold up in court. Martin is a tenured teacher so she is entitled to fundamental fairness. This case says that she is being asked to resign but has not been dismissed so it is a bit difficult to see what the outcome of that will be and if the board does/does not get their way.....
5. What factors would the court consider in ruling on her case?
Is Martin's ability to be an effective teacher been harmed in anyway due to the DUI? Is she still able to perform all of her job functions effectively?
Is Martin being harassed/treated unfairly or differently due to the fact that she is a female?
Has Martin been given due process and all of the rights that this entitles her to?
What have her evaluations and tenure said about her ability to do her job?
Is this her first, second or third offense?
6. What conclusion do you think the court would reach in this situation? Provide a rationale for your response.
I think the court would rule in favor of Martin due to the fact that this case could come down to discrimination and the courts have proven that school districts will be held liable if they were aware of the situation (they were and actually contributed to the situation and knew that alcohol would be at the school sponsored event. This, in itself, would really be the deciding factor as wether the district had prior knowledge and they certainly did as it was an event at the principal's house). The bottom line also rests on the fact of the matter that the board is pressuring her for a resignation for an act that has nothing to do with her ability to do her job.
Assignment for Chap. 9 Discrimination in Employment.
1) Read Chapter 9 Discrimination and Teacher Employment.
2) Post Group Responses on the Discussion Board in Assignment 9 - Employment Discrimination folder.
Group 2 Disc. - DUI
Discussion Questions:
1. Can the board force Martin to resign? Why or Why not?
No, they cannot force her to resign. Based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a portion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits discrimination by state government institutions. The clause grants all people "equal protection of the laws," which means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another. In this case, Martin has received a DUI and others teachers have not, but have been pulled over for the same offense. They cannot legally force her to resign and "give preference to one person over another".
2. Is the infraction serious enough to warrant dismissal? Why or why not?
No, a DUI - although not a good reveal of personal morals and judgment nor being a good role model for students - is not a serious enough infraction to warrant dismissal from teaching. As stated, a DUI obviously shows character flaws in any individual who chooses to drink and drive, but it does not affect an individual's ability to perform his/her job - unless it is a reoccurring event in which case deems reason to investigate and look at possibility of need for further evaluation.
3. What about male colleagues who were not charged for similar offenses?
As a government employee, cops are also bound to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another. That having been said, Martin may have grounds for issuing a complaint against the police department on a basis of sexual discrimination in the manner of issuing a DUI to her and not to numerous male teachers on other occasions. However, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the actual reason for the issuance of the DUI was sexual discrimination. This burden if oftentimes difficult to prove because there are very few instances in which plaintiffs have objective evidence or proof of discrimination.
Obviously, if the male teachers were not charged with DUI, the school has no "issues" with their employment. Martin has nothing to argue in regards to her employment situation comparatively to theirs.
4. What rights does Martin have as a teacher in this situation?
Martin has several rights in this case. First, she has the right to tell the board No to their request for her resignation. She also has the right of Due Process. If the school board wants a resignation because the small town is swirling in rumors they will need to have documentation and proof to back up their request or it will not hold up in court. Martin is a tenured teacher so she is entitled to fundamental fairness. This case says that she is being asked to resign but has not been dismissed so it is a bit difficult to see what the outcome of that will be and if the board does/does not get their way.....
5. What factors would the court consider in ruling on her case?
Is Martin's ability to be an effective teacher been harmed in anyway due to the DUI? Is she still able to perform all of her job functions effectively?
Is Martin being harassed/treated unfairly or differently due to the fact that she is a female?
Has Martin been given due process and all of the rights that this entitles her to?
What have her evaluations and tenure said about her ability to do her job?
Is this her first, second or third offense?
6. What conclusion do you think the court would reach in this situation? Provide a rationale for your response.